I agree the courts have agreed media shifting is legal. However, I believe that, yes, if Mike cannot access the technology he needs to do what he wants, and must resort to an illegal copy of material he is, ethically, screwed. To obtain an illegal copy is not ethical. To support people who make illegal copies is not ethical. (Yes, this is saying downloading illegal copies supports piracy. If no one downloaded them, no pirate would bother uploading. Thus, taking advantage of the service they offer is supporting them. Many also have banner ads that make them money, so they actually profit when you support them, though this is not needful for my ethical argument).
Just because you have an option I do not, I'm not "unfairly punished," as long as the option is not something crucial to my life.
Yes, Mike could borrow Bob's scanner. Yes, Bob could scan Mike's book for Mike. No, Bob could notscan his own copy and give it to Mike, since Bobn is then -NOT- media shifting. He's making an unauthorized copy.
Do I believe this is the direction most people go? No. Do I think it's SMARTER for a company to make it easy on their customers rather than hard? Yes. But -ethically- I believe there is a clear line in the sand here. It's obvious to me, and the fact that it may inconvenience people does NOT change the ethics of it.
And it's NOT like the government saying you get free insurance if you have a power washer. It's saying that Mike may make a backup copy with whatever tools he has available. He can borrow a scanner. He can rent a scanner. He can (I believe) ask a friend to scan it for him.
Copyright is, literally, the right to make copies. Precisely, to decide under what circumstances copies may be made. It is controlled by law, which includes the right to media shift. (Though as I understand it, that right is limited to a single copy. You can't, as I read the cases in question, make a tape, an MP3, and a CD of your 45 record just because you want to play it three different ways).
If you break that copyright for your convenience,m you are removing a legal power of the copyright holder. You have taken something from that holder -their power to decide when, how and for what media copies are made, without compensation. That's unethical. It's unjust. The fact you may lack tools to do what you want is no more unfair than someone who can't visit a national park because they don't have a car. As long as the park would welcome them on arrival, no injustice or unfairness has occurred.
It is also, I realize, impossible to prevent. My own business models always assume I should make customers happy for buying my products, not make them ticked at how many hoops I put them through in the hopes they won't be criminals. That's stupid. But it would be my legal right, and customers abrogating it would be unethical. While life and death, dignity of existence and basic human freedoms are fair basis for challenging laws and rights, INCONVENIENCE is not.
Here, my basis for the ethical question is largely legal. It may be the law should be changed. But while it has not, my position is clear to me, and I don't see why anyone would think otherwise. If you have a black and white television, you can't decide to pay the cable company less than your contract because you aren't getting the colors. If you lack the appetite of your neighbor, you can't take food home from the buffet with the no doggy-bag policy just because your neighbor ate more than you can. It's the ethical equivalent of a misdemeanor, but yes, it's a violation.
Yes, Mike could borrow Bob's scanner. Yes, Bob could scan Mike's book for Mike. No, Bob could notscan his own copy and give it to Mike, since Bobn is then -NOT- media shifting.
Your original claim is justifiable, if problematic. If you think that interfacing with someone who is actively distributing something in contravention of the law is morally problematic it's certainly possible to support that in various ways.
This position, however, is ludicrous. Both books have the exact same content. If the right to create a copy that is shifted to another physical location and format exists, it must do so because the purchase of the former grants you a right to utilize the content itself (rather than just the physical representation of it you originally bought) in various ways. If so, what you have to do to get at the raw content might be ethically and legally relevant (if you have to participate in a criminal activity, for example) but whether your digital copy is "sourced" from the same physical book is not.
I'll note that inasmuch as your position seems to be based purely on an appeal to authority ("this is the law, so it must be right"), US caselaw suggests that someone else format-shifting for you, from a copy of the same media that you own, is legal as long as it is established sufficiently firmly that you do own the content in question.
I agree the courts have agreed media shifting is legal. However, I believe that, yes, if Mike cannot access the technology he needs to do what he wants, and must resort to an illegal copy of material he is, ethically, screwed. To obtain an illegal copy is not ethical. To support people who make illegal copies is not ethical. (Yes, this is saying downloading illegal copies supports piracy. If no one downloaded them, no pirate would bother uploading. Thus, taking advantage of the service they offer is supporting them. Many also have banner ads that make them money, so they actually profit when you support them, though this is not needful for my ethical argument).
Just because you have an option I do not, I'm not "unfairly punished," as long as the option is not something crucial to my life.
Yes, Mike could borrow Bob's scanner. Yes, Bob could scan Mike's book for Mike. No, Bob could notscan his own copy and give it to Mike, since Bobn is then -NOT- media shifting. He's making an unauthorized copy.
Do I believe this is the direction most people go? No. Do I think it's SMARTER for a company to make it easy on their customers rather than hard? Yes. But -ethically- I believe there is a clear line in the sand here. It's obvious to me, and the fact that it may inconvenience people does NOT change the ethics of it.
And it's NOT like the government saying you get free insurance if you have a power washer. It's saying that Mike may make a backup copy with whatever tools he has available. He can borrow a scanner. He can rent a scanner. He can (I believe) ask a friend to scan it for him.
Copyright is, literally, the right to make copies. Precisely, to decide under what circumstances copies may be made. It is controlled by law, which includes the right to media shift. (Though as I understand it, that right is limited to a single copy. You can't, as I read the cases in question, make a tape, an MP3, and a CD of your 45 record just because you want to play it three different ways).
If you break that copyright for your convenience,m you are removing a legal power of the copyright holder. You have taken something from that holder -their power to decide when, how and for what media copies are made, without compensation. That's unethical. It's unjust. The fact you may lack tools to do what you want is no more unfair than someone who can't visit a national park because they don't have a car. As long as the park would welcome them on arrival, no injustice or unfairness has occurred.
It is also, I realize, impossible to prevent. My own business models always assume I should make customers happy for buying my products, not make them ticked at how many hoops I put them through in the hopes they won't be criminals. That's stupid. But it would be my legal right, and customers abrogating it would be unethical. While life and death, dignity of existence and basic human freedoms are fair basis for challenging laws and rights, INCONVENIENCE is not.
Here, my basis for the ethical question is largely legal. It may be the law should be changed. But while it has not, my position is clear to me, and I don't see why anyone would think otherwise. If you have a black and white television, you can't decide to pay the cable company less than your contract because you aren't getting the colors. If you lack the appetite of your neighbor, you can't take food home from the buffet with the no doggy-bag policy just because your neighbor ate more than you can. It's the ethical equivalent of a misdemeanor, but yes, it's a violation.
Reply
Your original claim is justifiable, if problematic. If you think that interfacing with someone who is actively distributing something in contravention of the law is morally problematic it's certainly possible to support that in various ways.
This position, however, is ludicrous. Both books have the exact same content. If the right to create a copy that is shifted to another physical location and format exists, it must do so because the purchase of the former grants you a right to utilize the content itself (rather than just the physical representation of it you originally bought) in various ways. If so, what you have to do to get at the raw content might be ethically and legally relevant (if you have to participate in a criminal activity, for example) but whether your digital copy is "sourced" from the same physical book is not.
I'll note that inasmuch as your position seems to be based purely on an appeal to authority ("this is the law, so it must be right"), US caselaw suggests that someone else format-shifting for you, from a copy of the same media that you own, is legal as long as it is established sufficiently firmly that you do own the content in question.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment